This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Let me get this straight: Some attorneys from the ACLU and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers used information obtained in the course of defending their clients to hire investigators to take pictures of covert CIA operatives, and then showed them to Guantanamo detainees.

You've got to be ****ing kidding me.

There's a difference between zealous advocacy and....this. This is just wrong.

Why should anyone find this kind of despicable behavior from these Left wing nutjobs surprising?

God forbid we should attempt to protect our citizens from future terrorist attacks. After all, many today are pretending 9-11, the attack on the Cole and many other events never occurred.

To a point I agree with you. However, this war on terror, as it were, is a new concept. Generally one army fights another and you have POW's. However, as Al Qaeda and the lot have no standard uniform, terrorists of these camps pose a difficult question. Should we treat them as POW's until the War on Terror is complete, or do we treat them as international criminals? Many feel the former is accurate, but is it possible to actually get to a point when the war on terror is won? Also, these guys are part of a unit that is out to destroy Western culture. If they were acting alone it would be an easy question to answer, they are international criminals. However, as they are not, and tend to have a chain of command and central authority, they may indeed be considered POW's.

I wonder how many drug runners or gang members we have put in detainment as unlawful combatants we can pretty much use this term with anyone at this point. Hell we have a declared war on drugs. Lets start using that term as well

You mean a non-covert agent previously outed by the CIA itself not to mention by her own husband who was busy trying to get credibility for his bull**** Niger story by peddling his wife's name around to every reporter who would listen, that's how Armitage knew she was CIA in the first place, but don't let the facts stand in the way of a good smear campaign.

When was she outed by the CIA or her husband prior to the outing in the paper? She was covert the CIA referred the matter to Justice and the CIA director stated she was covert. The only part that was bull**** about the Niger story was the documents were forged and the administration was told not to use it in the state of the union address and did it anyway.

I say we look to our Constitution and to International law for an answer. It is understood that it's easier said than done. Thank you kindly for the clarifications though.

When we look at the REALITY of laws and Geneva Conventions, we can find no support for your desperate and illogical assertions that these terrorist thugs acting as non-uniformed enemy combatants who represent no nations should be given Constitutional protections or Geneva Convention protections.

We do owe it to ourselves to conduct ourselves in a civil manner and Abu Ghraib shows that when we correctly prosecuted individuals for acting on their own outside of our code of conduct. But the controlled situations that were conducted on a select few post 9-11 in our desperate efforts to protect innocent lives hardly suggest uncivil actions.

We provide them with clean clothes, three meals a day, medical care and prayer rugs.

Contrast that with how YOU would be treated had they captured you, OR, how the innocent people working in the Pentagon and World Trade Center were treated. I can still see the bodies of our fellow citizens falling through the air to their imminent deaths desperate to escape a worse death of fire and being crushed under the weight of tons of steel, glass and cement.

Perhaps you need to watch some film as a constant reminder of who we are dealing with here. These aren't common every day variety criminals.

Please show me where these non-uniformed combatants and terrorists who do not represent a legitimate nation applies under this article:

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

"In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. . ."

I would like you to re-read this section and then desperately attempt to explain how these non-uniformed terrorists apply here (I am highlighting the pertinent passages to make it easier for you to figure this out):

occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions

I wonder how many drug runners or gang members we have put in detainment as unlawful combatants we can pretty much use this term with anyone at this point. Hell we have a declared war on drugs. Lets start using that term as well

The only part that was bull**** about the Niger story was the documents were forged and the administration was told not to use it in the state of the union address and did it anyway.

Not true.

However, George Tenet has admitted that making the claim was a mistake stating "The president had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound. These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president."